I agree that it is much more straight forward.
Murray A. Burke
Program Manager
DARPA/IXO
3701 N. Fairfax Drive Phone: 703-696-2303
Arlington, VA 22203-1714 Fax: 703-696-2203
mailto: mburke@darpa.mil DSN: 426-2303
-----Original Message-----
From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:51 PM
To: tim finin; Adam Pease
Cc: daml-all@daml.org
Subject: RE: ASSERTION, QUESTION, SUGGESTION - final draft
Tim, the terminology you suggested is clearer than the current
uniqueProperty and unambiguousProperty.
--katia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-daml-all@mail.daml.org
[mailto:owner-daml-all@mail.daml.org]On Behalf Of tim finin
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:32 PM
To: Adam Pease
Cc: daml-all@daml.org
Subject: Re: ASSERTION, QUESTION, SUGGESTION - final draft
Adam -- I had uniqueProperty and unambiguousProperty
confused. But, for the example you gave "Person has SSN"
it should be both. That is, hasSSN is both a uniqueProperty
and an unambiguousProperty, since it is one-to-one (at least
in the idealized world). I think this makes the example more
interesting, in fact.
The W3C Webont working group is looking for better names to
use for these qualities of properties for its new language.
What do people think of using names like oneToOneProperty,
manyToOnePropoerty, oneToManyProperty, and manyToManyProperty.
Tim